Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-17681 #115

12-17681 #115

|Views: 30|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 115 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority: Hollingsworth v. Perry
Doc 115 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Authority: Hollingsworth v. Perry

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 23, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Post Office Box 540774Orlando, FL 32854-0774
Telephone: 800•671•1776
Facsimile: 407•875•0770
1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202•289•1776
Facsimile: 202•289•7474
 Post Office Box 11108Lynchburg, VA 24506-1108
Telephone: 434•592•7000
Facsimile: 434•592•7700
Reply to: VirginiaJune 28, 2013
Via CM/ECF Electronic Filing
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit95 7th StreetSan Francisco, CA 94103Re:
Pickup, et al. v. Brown, et al.
, Case No. 12-17681
Citation of Supplemental Authorities, F.R.App.P. 28(j), Local Rule 28-6
To: Honorable Members of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:Plaintiffs wish to d
irect the Court’s attention to a decision of the United States Supreme
Court in
Hollingsworth, et al. v. Perry et al.
, No. 12-144 (June 26, 2013), which relates to theissue of standing of intervening parties such as Equality California in this case. That decision isattached to this letter.In
, the Supreme Court held that a public interest group did not have Article III standing to defend a law merely because it supported the passage and adoption of such a law. The Court vacated and remanded a decision by this Court that reached the merits
of that case and merely accepted the district court’s grant of intervention. The Court stated that
public interest groups must have an actual injury to continue to defend a law that it hassupported.Sincerely,/s/Mathew D. Staver  Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Case: 12-17681 06/28/2013 ID: 8684765 DktEntry: 115 Page: 1 of 19
2013 WL 3196927Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.Supreme Court of the United StatesHOLLINGSWORTH et al. v.PERRY et al.No. 12
144. | Argued March 26, 2013. |Decided June 26, 2013.
Same-sex couples who had beendenied marriage licenses brought civil rightsaction against Governor of California and other state and local officials, alleging that
California’s Proposition 8, a voter 
-enacted ballot initiative that amended the CaliforniaConstitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman was valid, therebyeliminating the right of same-sex couples tomarry, violated their rights to due process andequal protection under the FourteenthAmendment to the Federal Constitution.
Initiative’s official proponents intervened on
 behalf of defendants, and municipality andcounty intervened on behalf of plaintiffs. After a bench trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,Vaughn R.Walker,Chief Judge,704 F.Supp.2d 921,granted judgment for plaintiff 
s, and proponents’
motion to vacate was denied by the DistrictCourt,James Ware,Chief Judge,790 F.Supp.2d 1119.Proponents appealed both decisions. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit,628 F.3d 1191,certified question, andthe California SupremeCourt, 52 Cal.4th 1116,265 P.3d 1002, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499,answeredthat question. The Court of Appeals,Reinhardt, Circuit Judge,671 F.3d 1052,affirmed, andrehearing en banc was denied,681 F.3d 1065. Certiorari was granted.
The Supreme Court, Chief JusticeRoberts,held that proponents did not have
standing to appeal district court’s order 
declaring the Proposition unconstitutional.Vacated and remanded with instructions.JusticeKennedy,joined by JusticesThomas,  Alito,andSotomayor,filed a dissenting opinion.
The syllabus constitutes no part of theopinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See 
After the California Supreme Court held thatlimiting marriage to opposite-sex couplesviolated the California Constitution, state voters passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition8, amending the State Constitution to definemarriage as a union between a man and awoman
Respondents, same-sex couples whowish to marry, filed suit in federal court,challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Processand Equal Protection Clauses of the FourteenthAmendment, and naming as defendants
California’s Governor a
nd other state and local
officials responsible for enforcing California’s
marriage laws. The officials refused to defendthe law, so the District Court allowed petitioners
 —the initiative’s official
to intervene to defend it. After a bench trial, the court declared Proposition 8unconstitutional and enjoined the publicofficials named as defendants from enforcingthe law. Those officials elected not to appeal, but petitioners did. The Ninth Circuit certified aquestion to the California Supreme Court:whether official proponents of a ballot initiative
have authority to assert the State’s interest in
defending the constitutionality of the initiativewhen public officials refuse to do so. After theCalifornia Supreme Court answered in theaffirmative, the Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners had standing under federal law to
defend Proposition 8’s constitutionality. On the
Case: 12-17681 06/28/2013 ID: 8684765 DktEntry: 115 Page: 2 of 19
merits, the court affirmed the District Court’s
: Petitioners did not have standing toappeal the District Court
’s order. Pp. –––– 
 –––  – 
, 5
17.(a) Article III of the Constitution confines the judicial power of federal courts to deciding
actual “Cases” or “Controversies.” § 2. One
essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal courtmust demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. Although moststanding cases consider whether a plaintiff hassatisfied the requirement when filing suit,Article III
demands that an “actual controversy”
 persist throughout all stages of litigation.
 Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
568 U.S.
 –––– . Standing “must be met by persons seeking
appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first ins
520U.S. 43, 64, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170. The parties do not contest that respondents hadstanding to initiate this case against theCalifornia officials responsible for enforcingProposition 8. But once the District Court issuedits order, respondents no longer had any injuryto redress, and the state officials chose not toappeal. The only individuals who sought toappeal were petitioners, who had intervened inthe District Court, but they had not been orderedto do or refrain from doing anything. Their onlyinterest was to vindicate the constitutionalvalidity of a generally applicable California law.As this Court has repeatedly held, such a
“generalized grievance”— 
no matter howsincere
is insufficient to confer standing. See
574, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351. Petitioners claim that the California Constitution
and election laws give them a “ ‘unique,’‘special,’ and ‘distinct’ role in the initiative process,” Reply Brief 5, but that is only true
during the process of enacting the law. OnceProposition 8 was approved, it became a dulyenacted constitutional amendment. Petitionershave no role
special or otherwise
in its
enforcement. They therefore have no “personalstake” in defending its enforcement that is
distinguishable from the general interest of every California citizen. No matter how deeplycommitted petitioners may be to upholdingProposition 8, that is not a particularized interestsufficient to create a case or controversy under Article III. Pp.
, 5
(b) Petitioners’ arguments t
o the contrary areunpersuasive. Pp.
, 9
(1) They claim that they may assert the
State’s interest on the State’s behalf, but it is a“fundamental restriction on our authority” that“[i]n the ordinary course, a litigant ... cannot rest
a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of 
third parties.”
476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct.1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48,for example, a pediatricianengaged in private practice was not permitted to
defend the constitutionality of Illinois’ abortion
law after the State chose not to appeal an
adverse ruling. The state attorney general’s“letter of interest,” explaining that the State’sinterest in the proceeding was “ ‘essentially co
terminous with’ “ Diamond’s position, 
at 61,was insufficient, since Diamond was unable toassert an injury of his own, 
at 65.Pp.
, 9
10.(2) Petitioners contend the California Supreme
Court’s determination that they were au
under California law to assert the State’s interest
in the validity of Proposition 8 means that they
“need no more show a personal injury, separatefrom the State’s indisputable interest in thevalidity of its law, than would California’s
Attorney General or did the legislative leadersheld to have standing in
Reply Brief 6. But far from supporting
 petitioners’ standing,
is compelling precedent against it. In that case, after the NewJersey attorney general refused to defend theconstitutionality of a state law, leaders of New
Jersey’s Legislature were permitted to appear, in
Case: 12-17681 06/28/2013 ID: 8684765 DktEntry: 115 Page: 3 of 19

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->